]]>By: aaronhttp://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=13&cpage=1#comment-188
Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:54:46 +0000http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=13#comment-188dear sam,
precisely what is the nature , the meaning, and the purpose of our collective existence? do you really offer any solutions to lifes most enduring mysteries? is it possible at all for you to imagine an existence or reality or force entirely beyond your tiny understanding?
You stand so self-righteously and resolutely, condemning the humble hearts of the faithful, pretending that your puny intellect has “discovered the secrets that have laid hidden since the foundation of the earth” Are you yourself a prophet? do you offer thanks, honor and praise to anything beyond your own worthless little ego? may the holy spirit move you to truth rather than the condemnation of your lesser brothers and sisters. for truly your gift is in the mind, though your spirit is comatose. wake up , mortal, to the revelation of the deathless divine.
]]>By: Happy Evolutehttp://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=13&cpage=1#comment-144
Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:23:39 +0000http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=13#comment-144SHAMELESSLY OF TOPIC

Wesley

non-physical being: an entity who is not composed of matter, occupies no space, and so is necessarily outside of time; non-physical means not bounded by time yet able to perceive all of it at once (concomitant omniscience is necessary for this); non-physical being refers also to a spirit entity
Given your definition we can begin to discuss reasons for believing such a thing exists. We are looking for a thing

a) not made of matter (can I assume you include mass/energy/vacuum energy/electromagnetic field etc as â€œmatterâ€?), which

b) doesnâ€™t occupy space (no boundaries) or time (no beginning or end), and is

c) composed of a different sort of â€œmatterâ€, which you call â€œspiritâ€.

d) able to perceive( and affect?) the world-made-of-matter in its entirety.

NB: A non-existent thing also satisfies a) and b), so you must admit that God shares some characteristics with non-existent things.

As for c) and d) we must ask how the world would look if c) and d) were manifest in something and compare this with how the world would look if they were not. We would then compare these results with the world we perceive and draw a conclusion.

If we can find no difference between how the world would look in either event then we should take the simplest option, which is that there is nothing that satisfies condition c) and d).

The only candidate I can come up with would be â€œconsciousnessâ€ which I have myself and which partially satisfies condition d). Since consciousness is not understood by anyone we cannot rule out the possibility that it is made of a different substance (which we could call â€œspiritâ€).

I believe that other consciousnesses exist (in time and space) because, like you, when I talk to them they talk back. But I am not able to perceive all of time at once, only some of it for some of the time, and I assume that you are the same, so I am not “God” and neither are you. Where is the evidence that a thing that is able to do d) exists, in any form, physical or otherwise?

Steve

PS Why not join the Forum, this thread is difficult to find!

]]>By: wesleyhttp://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=13&cpage=1#comment-119
Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:32:47 +0000http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=13#comment-119really not too much explaining to do; please refer to post on “Listen to God Day”; i have yet to see any refutation to the syllogism—-plenty of name-calling and insults as “responses” over there but no answer that addresses the issue raised nor its answer i wrote (though i didn’t really expect a solid response anyway); if bertrand russell and carl sagan failed, it’s unlikely the atheists posting over there would have any success; it’s interesting to note that in all of their ranting about science, they never mention that Steven Hawking is a theist and is so primarily because of the facts relating to time upon which my syllogism is based; (the argument is not completely ‘mine'; i simply reworked an ancient argument; interesting that, even long ago, people willing to exert a higher degree of mental fortitude were able to deduce that God exists—-as i’d mentioned on the afore-referenced post: no faith is required to know that a non-physical being brought the physical realm into existence and put it in motion and necessarily from nothing.
]]>By: wesleyhttp://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=13&cpage=1#comment-118
Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:21:17 +0000http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=13#comment-118with minor corrections:

non-physical being: an entity who is not composed of matter, occupies no space, and so is necessarily outside of time; non-physical means not bounded by time yet able to perceive all of it at once (concomitant omniscience is necessary for this); non-physical being refers also to a spirit entity

“outside of time” is an idea for which we lack the reference points for comprehension; a fact to which most people cannot admit; it is a condition known as eternity—currently beyond our comprehension for our perception of reality is limited to the continual unfolding series of events (i.e. time) appurtenant to the physical realm (which also includes space & matter); we do not know what it is like to NOT be bounded by time because we are currently housed in physical vessels (human bodies) and we occupy space; therefore, we experience reality as a linear series of events as opposed to however reality is experienced in eternity…

]]>By: wesleyhttp://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=13&cpage=1#comment-117
Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:15:28 +0000http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=13#comment-117non-physical being: an entity who is not composed of matter, occupies no space, and so is necessarily outside of time; non-physical means not bounded by time yet able to perceive all of it at once (concomitant omniscience is necessary for this; non-physical being refers also to a spirit entity

“outside of time” is an idea for which we lack the reference points for comprehension; a fact to which most people cannot admit; it is a condition known as eternity—currently beyond our comprehension for our perception of reality is limited to the continual unfolding series of events appurtenant to the physical realm (which also includes space & matter); we do not know what it is like to NOT be bounded by time because we are currently housed in physical vessels (human bodies) and we occupy space; therefore, we experience reality as a linear series of events as opposed to whatever reality is in eternity..

I found the psychology of the debate a lot more interesting than the content.

Sam and Dennis seemed to be talking right across each other. I wonder if that is an artifact of the e-mail medium. Or, perhaps, it’s simply the case that neither of them is a particularly cogent debator. If I was more industrious, I’d try to boil the arguments of the two down to analyzable propositions.

I wholly side with Sam, by the way, at least positionally, if not in terms of debate tactics and argument substance. I’m an ex-Christian, former campus-crusader, and at one time was a personal acquaintance of William Craig. I was also a Scholar for Christ. This does not grant me any special authority. I mention it to demonstrate that one can have a deep and abiding interest in theological matters, have a 180 degree shift, and then maintain that interest. The answers have changed, for me, but the questions remain important.

For me, nowadays, it comes down to this: God, if you’re there, it would be really nice to have greater confirmation than religious emotions. Lots of people the world over have religious emotions of all kinds, for all kinds of reasons, and so what?

Eventually it dawned on me, “Hey, maybe he’s not showing himself because he’s not behind the curtain. Nobody’s back there, and you need to stop seeking the answers to ultimate questions in bronze-age books which explain the universe in suspiciously bronze-aged ways.”

God is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the existence of the physical universe, the existence of complex structure in that universe, the existence of life, nor the existence of ethical values.

Hmm, I too seem to have strayed off the topic. Anyway, terrific to see these issues being engaged publically. The polite truce serves nobody. We insult religion by refusing to engage it forcefully and critically. If it’s true, it will stand. If it’s false, it’s time to sweep it away.

faith is not required to know that God exists or at the very least, that a non-physical being who had no beginning and who is above the first â€œlawâ€ of thermodynamics exists; (itâ€™s a law in all cases except the first as God created the physical realm by fiat.